A new approach to propellant formulation: minimizing life-cycle costs through science-based design

Abstract

The traditional approach to developing propellants for specific gun applications relies heavily on trial and error. Candidate formulations must be made in small quantities and subjected to burning-rate measurements and small-scale vulnerability assessments. If the properties of these candidates fail to meet expectations, the process must be repeated. This approach, while historically unavoidable, is obviously inefficient in time and expense, but it also can generate considerable waste streams associated with unsuccessful formulations. With added considerations of life-cycle costs including environmental impact at all stages of development, use, and disposal, this traditional approach becomes increasingly unworkable. In this report a new approach is proposed which makes maximal use of scientific understanding embodied in models during the early phases of the propellant-development cycle. Through simple simulations, it is shown that this strategy can have a significant impact on the overall costs of the development process. In analogy to the DOE program to convert the nuclear-weapon stewardship from testing-based to science-based, we term the new approach "science-based design." It is argued that the modeling contribution to the propellant-development process is most efficiently implemented by subjecting candidate formulations to a hierarchy of models of different sophistication and input-data requirements, reserving the most rigorous models (usually the most data-intensive and least robust) for the most promising candidates. This new approach will require concentration and leveraging of resources toward the most critical early-phase development steps, but it may be the only credible strategy to reconcile the need for higher-performance weapons with the reality of declining resources.